This week’s decision in Jose M. Correa v. Woodman’s Food Market distributed five points to the Waivers (for a brief and oral argument by Husch Blackwell) and one point to the Citations (for an amicus brief by Cannon & Dunphy). On the strength of this showing, the Waivers broke away from the Affirmed and gained sole possession of second place.

Click here for complete, updated standings.

Four of the league’s five teams collected points from this week’s decision in Wisconsin Legislature v. Andrea Palm—with the Waivers leading the way, thanks to eight points from Husch Blackwell (brief and favorable outcome) and one point each from Hawks Quindel and Boardman & Clark (amicus briefs). Next came the Writs, with amicus briefs from Legal Action of Wisconsin, Pines Bach, and Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty earning the team its first three points of the season. Godfrey & Kahn and Stafford Rosenbaum also contributed to the barrage of amicus briefs, thereby delivering one point each to their teams—the Citations and the Affirmed, respectively.

When the dust settled, the Waivers had jumped into a second-place tie with the Affirmed, and they are poised to collect as many as 10 more points in a decision scheduled for release on Tuesday.

Click here for complete, updated standings.

With the arrival of spring, it becomes possible to estimate quite accurately the number of decisions that the justices will file by the time that they close the books on the current term at the end of July. The results have attracted more than casual interest over the past decade because of the historically small volume of cases during these years—an average of only 56 per term, and never more than 62. This compares to averages of 83, 78, and 110 for the three preceding decades, which are included in the following graph.^[1] [Continue Reading…]

The Supreme Court did not file any new decisions this week, and thus there are no changes in the standings.

The Supreme Court did not file any new decisions this week, and thus there are no changes in the standings.

Last month’s post on law-school representation rates at the Wisconsin Supreme Court prompted a question regarding women’s portions of the various findings in that piece. We can make some headway with this suggestion, because women accounted for 163 of the oral arguments given during the period—plenty for calculating meaningful percentages.^[1] [Continue Reading…]

This week, the supreme court’s filings delivered 10 points to the Gavels of the State Public Defender’s Office (for a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome in Langlade County v. D. J. W.). It seems clear that the Gavels are staging a breakaway, and the trailing pack can ill afford to wait much longer to reel them back in.

Click here for complete, updated standings.

The surprising scale of Judge Jill Karofsky’s triumph in April’s election may well immunize her victory from legal challenges spawned by the bizarre circumstances of the voting. Thus, it does not seem premature to speculate on the impact of her arrival among the justices for the 2020-21 term. The likelihood that her opinions will differ dramatically from those of her electoral opponent, Justice Daniel Kelly, invites predictions regarding the justices’ voting in a variety of cases, including their most contentious—those decided by 4-3 votes, which is our topic for today.[Continue Reading…]

Both decisions filed this week resulted in points for contestants. The Gavels of the State Public Defender’s Office kept their position at the head of the pack with five points for a brief and oral argument in State v. Harrison. However, the Affirmed stole the show with ten points from Stafford Rosenbaum for a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome in Pulkkila v. Pulkkila. This performance propelled the Affirmed over both the Citations and the Waivers into second place.

Click here for complete, updated standings.

This week’s decision in Winnebago County v. C.S. delivered a point to the Citations (for an amicus brief by Godfrey & Kahn) and, more dramatically, 10 points to the Gavels of the State Public Defender’s Office for a brief, oral argument, and favorable outcome. As a result, the Gavels tightened their hold on first place, and the Citations inched farther ahead of the pack in second.

Click here for the complete, updated standings.